Good artists copy, great artists steal doesn't mean what you think it means.

To copy a work of art is to duplicate it, adding no value in the process - and is generally illegal. To steal an idea means making the work your own, which is done by creating something new based on or inspired by the stolen idea.

For example, when Steve Jobs saw the Xerox Star, he didn't make a copy of it and sell that. He was inspired by it and took the idea, modified it, improved and added to it, creating the Macintosh which he did sell.

It might not be what you want, but adding AMOLED, >3.5" displays, removable battery, Android (notification/widgets), consumer choice, low price point etc.etc. to me constitues as adding value for the consumer.

Those things have nothing to do with design.

Having said that...

AMOLED has issues when viewing in a bright environment and the displays lifespan is also shorter than LCD.

The value of handheld displays over 3.5" is purely subjective.

User replaceable batteries make devices flimsier and bulkier and most people replace their smartphones long before the battery wears out anyway.

Consumer choice to buy an inferior product just for the hell of it.

Samsung phones that compete directly with the iPhone cost about the same. On the tablet side, wannabe iPad competitors often cost more than the iPad.

AMOLED has issues when viewing in a bright environment and the displays lifespan is also shorter than LCD.

The value of handheld displays over 3.5" is purely subjective.

User replaceable batteries make devices flimsier and bulkier and most people replace their smartphones long before the battery wears out anyway.

Consumer choice to buy an inferior product just for the hell of it.

Samsung phones that compete directly with the iPhone cost about the same. On the tablet side, wannabe iPad competitors often cost more than the iPad.

As my examples where subjective, so is your evaluation of them.

This thread also isn't about the design so I'm not sure what to make of your dismissal of these points. It does give me a deja-vu of a lot of discussions about these topics where the subject switches continually from design issues, software patents, hardware design etc.

My reaction was to the remark of copying/cloning the device without adding value, and I gave examples where they did add value to the device.

On a separate note... why haven't the makers of this prior art gone after Apple by now?

Some have, with Elan coming to mind right away. I believe there was another more recent one, but perhaps by an NPE. In any event Apple settled with Elan, but in doing so cross-licensed some of their own applicable IP which allowed for manufacturer's to license with Elan and avoid patent suits over simply using a touchscreen.

This thread also isn't about the design so I'm not sure what to make of your dismissal of these points. It does give me a deja-vu of a lot of discussions about these topics where the subject switches continually from design issues, software patents, hardware design etc.

My reaction was to the remark of copying/cloning the device without adding value, and I gave examples where they did add value to the device.

My comments referred to the old "great artists steal" line and it's intended meaning. From an artist's perspective, Samsung is blatantly copying a direct competitor's designs without adding anything new to the design. Tacking on unrelated "features" is a business and marketing tactic, not a design feat.

1. It proves Han DOES have a case; otherwise, he would not be informed as to what Apple's doing with Iphone etc...Apple must've pre-empted him with something of his liking.

2. He is brilliant. Otherwise his technology wouldn't be "paid homage to" by Apple.

3. His company Perceptive Pixel was bought by Microsoft. Knowing how "lovely" the relationship of Apple and Microsoft is, we can surmise a cross licensing is in the work. How much dough Jeff Han is getting for his 6 years old company we just don't know. I am sure the amount will surpass the pile of dough he would've gotten had he gone after Apple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

What do these articles and non-quotes prove?

$200 Billion isn't enough

Han doesn't have a case

Han is brilliant, but unwise

Why do you assume that "no comment" has more implied meaning than no action?

If Han's company gets onto mobile -- he better be careful about Apple's IP.

AIR, the original iPhone could detect 11 concurrent touches if not the first iPhone. the capability has been around for several years... I remember asking what you would use to make the 11th touch

Good artists copy, great artists steal doesn't mean what you think it means.

To copy a work of art is to duplicate it, adding no value in the process - and is generally illegal. To steal an idea means making the work your own, which is done by creating something new based on or inspired by the stolen idea.

For example, when Steve Jobs saw the Xerox Star, he didn't make a copy of it and sell that. He was inspired by it and took the idea, modified it, improved and added to it, creating the Macintosh which he did sell.

Android and TouchWinz are not exactly same as iOS.

Samsung/Google was inspired by iOS and took the idea, modified it, improved and added to it, creating the Android/TouchWinz which he did sell.

This thread also isn't about the design so I'm not sure what to make of your dismissal of these points. It does give me a deja-vu of a lot of discussions about these topics where the subject switches continually from design issues, software patents, hardware design etc.

My reaction was to the remark of copying/cloning the device without adding value, and I gave examples where they did add value to the device.

Wait, I'm not so sure you're talking value adding anything in your points. Amoled vs lcd - it's different sides of the same coin. They're both screens. Is this what the lawsuit is about?

Size is not a value either, given it's purely subjective. I'm 6' 3", does that make me better than you are at 5' 11"? Is this what the lawsuit is about?

User replaceable batteries? And what pray tell value does that bring? Sounds to me more like an excuse for not making the battery robust enough to survive the intended use, but this too is not what we're talking about here is it?

Consumer choice? Is that your argument for what? For allowing Samsung, or anyone else, to copy another company's product(s) so that the consumer has a choice to buy the real thing or a knock-off? Again, I'm not seeing how this pertains to the lawsuit?

Price? Again, how does that pertain to the lawsuit in question? I would argue that it's Samsung's benefit to steal ideas from Apple and others so as not to have the burden of development costs, which in turn allows them to price their products, in some cases, lower than the competition. That's not right or fair, even if you consider their products are generally not competing on the same quality/design level.

No, it shows that the idea for multi-touch interaction with a computer screen existed before the iPhone. The guy even called it "multi-touch" at one point. It doesn't matter if the gestures are different (Why would that matter in any way?) or that it is used on a different OS...the idea is clearly being used PRIOR to the iPhone. I am not an "Apple hater", but this looks like an example of prior art to me.

1. It proves Han DOES have a case; otherwise, he would not be informed as to what Apple's doing with Iphone etc...Apple must've pre-empted him with something of his liking.

2. He is brilliant. Otherwise his technology wouldn't be "paid homage to" by Apple.

3. His company Perceptive Pixel was bought by Microsoft. Knowing how "lovely" the relationship of Apple and Microsoft is, we can surmise a cross licensing is in the work. How much dough Jeff Han is getting for his 6 years old company we just don't know. I am sure the amount will surpass the pile of dough he would've gotten had he gone after Apple.

Just because you want something to be true, and keep repeating it... doesn't make it true.

Apple had $200 Billion revenue from multi touch devices... MS has a market cap of $250 Billion compared to Apple's $589 Billion -- you figure who is the best potential source for money.

I suspect that Han sold his company and IP for a lump sum and won't receive any royalties or license fees. MS plays hardball and I suspect what Han received is rather lower than what a valid claim against Apple would have brought.

Finally, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Han's offering resembles MS' big-assed [Surface] table more that any of Apple's offerings. I suspect MS bought Han's company because of the nuisance factor, rather than the potential for cross-licensing the IP to Apple.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Okay, well first off the Pinch to zoom is clearly nothing like Samsungs LaunchTile.

Second off, Samsung's "DiamondTouch" is the exact opposite of pinch to zoom, in Samsung's system, you use it to change window size, in Apple's you use it to actually make objects appear larger onscreen, without affecting the size of the window.

Both of Samsung's bullshit patents don't cover Apple's tech.

You are correct, Samsung is showing drag to resize a window not and actual ZOOM of the window which would give the user a closer look. I hope the jury can understand the difference.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a patent is for an implementation not a vague idea. So the "pinch to zoom" patent isn't "hey man, if you pinch something it should get smaller, and if you do the reverse it gets bigger." It's more specific than that. As others have pointed out a number of these examples don't show "zooming" at all. They show "pinch to shrink." Moreover, the way the Diamond Touch thing works is different (and more limited) than Apple's implementation. The explanation refers to changes in the size of the bounding box--as the user's fingers go beyond the edges of a box, the box is enlarged. Guess what, Apple's pinch-to-zoom gestures don't make any reference to where the fingers are inside the bounds of an area (assuming they both inside to start).

Having said that Han's stuff looks much more similar. However it appears that he either didn't patent it (sucks to be him) and/or he made some sort of "I can't talk about it" deal with Apple (good for him). Some people seem to think that if one finds prior art for a patent that that will provide some great windfall for the prior art creator. That's only true if the prior art is patented. The creator of the prior art doesn't retroactively get the benefit of the now-invalidated patent; the patent just goes poof.

It's more specific than that. As others have pointed out a number of these examples don't show "zooming" at all. They show "pinch to shrink." [...] The explanation refers to changes in the size of the bounding box--as the user's fingers go beyond the edges of a box, the box is enlarged. Guess what, Apple's pinch-to-zoom gestures don't make any reference to where the fingers are inside the bounds of an area (assuming they both inside to start).

Unfortunately, only if Samsung's lawyers were able to show this information to the jury. It seems pretty obvious to me that Apple's patent should be invalidated.

Yeah, I am sure that, for all that's riding on this trial for Samsung and the amount of time they've spent and the man-hours of legal firepower and the multiple countries where it's being litigated with multiple teams of lawyers, they must have missed something that a fandroider found on Youtube!

Tim Cook is gay, believes in climate change, and cares deeply about racial equality. Deal with it (and please spare us if you can't).

2:36 shows one-handed pinch to zoom out, a few seconds later it's a two-handed pull to zoom in.

[sarcasm]Oh, but apple did it on a phone, that's true innovation.[/sarcasm]

The only problem is that your "prior" art is dated months after Apple's priority date. Maybe you should look up the meaning of 'prior'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamC

Prior art is a great idea but if it is not mainstream then it is not valid.

Prior of the image of the tablet in Star Trek is lame because it is just an image and nothing more. If it needs to be relevant it has to be mainstream and proved to be a working model, not just some make believe.

Prior art is too widely abuse today. Sad

Your first sentence is incorrect. Prior Art does not need to be mainstream to be used as a defense. If it was in the public domain at all, it can invalidate a patent.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Since you are suspecting so much, I suspect your suspicions are suspect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Just because you want something to be true, and keep repeating it... doesn't make it true.

Apple had $200 Billion revenue from multi touch devices... MS has a market cap of $250 Billion compared to Apple's $589 Billion -- you figure who is the best potential source for money.

I suspect that Han sold his company and IP for a lump sum and won't receive any royalties or license fees. MS plays hardball and I suspect what Han received is rather lower than what a valid claim against Apple would have brought.

Finally, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Han's offering resembles MS' big-assed [Surface] table more that any of Apple's offerings. I suspect MS bought Han's company because of the nuisance factor, rather than the potential for cross-licensing the IP to Apple.

This line originally dates back not to Jobs or Picasso, but to T.S Eliot, and the original quote sheds some light into the intended meaning, which is often misinterpreted by the clueless as a license to steal other's work and ideas."One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.
"
The quote is from an essay Eliot wrote on a playwright named Philip Massinger. He's basically saying that good poets borrow from other's works in a way that contributes something entirely new to the medium. He is not suggesting that merely imitating someone's work without added value is justified.

Eliot's comment on borrowing "from authors remote in time, alien in language, or diverse in interest" meshes brilliantly with many of Apple's design influences, such as Dieter Rams's transistor radio designs' influence on the original iPod. Another great example is the iPad's Smart Cover, which bears an uncanny resemblance to an obscure Japanese bathtub cover.

Contrast this with Samsung's modus operandi, which is to blatantly copy [often poorly] their direct competitors' designs without adding any value.

this post is why i "plow" through sooooo many posts of questionable quality... to find a gem!.

This line originally dates back not to Jobs or Picasso, but to T.S Eliot, and the original quote sheds some light into the intended meaning, which is often misinterpreted by the clueless as a license to steal other's work and ideas.

"One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest."

The quote is from an essay Eliot wrote on a playwright named Philip Massinger. He's basically saying that good poets borrow from other's works in a way that contributes something entirely new to the medium. He is not suggesting that merely imitating someone's work without added value is justified.

Eliot's comment on borrowing "from authors remote in time, alien in language, or diverse in interest" meshes brilliantly with many of Apple's design influences, such as Dieter Rams's transistor radio designs' influence on the original iPod. Another great example is the iPad's Smart Cover, which bears an uncanny resemblance to an obscure Japanese bathtub cover.

Contrast this with Samsung's modus operandi, which is to blatantly copy [often poorly] their direct competitors' designs without adding any value.

Good artists copy, great artists steal doesn't mean what you think it means.

To copy a work of art is to duplicate it, adding no value in the process - and is generally illegal. To steal an idea means making the work your own, which is done by creating something new based on or inspired by the stolen idea.

For example, when Steve Jobs saw the Xerox Star, he didn't make a copy of it and sell that. He was inspired by it and took the idea, modified it, improved and added to it, creating the Macintosh which he did sell.

Maybe you're looking at it wrong?
Anyway: Looks like this may well be a case of... Prior Art = Invalid Patent.

I didn't see any demonstration of rubber-banding in the videos.

As for pinch to zoom, the DiamondTouch demo uses a similar gesture to size something but not to zoom in or out on anything. I'm not sure how that applies to patent law today, though I'm not too sure about granting patents on something like 'pinch to zoom' anyway. It does seem like a pretty natural gesture and I'm surprised this much reaching is needed in the first place.

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good. Samuel Johnson

Since you are suspecting so much, I suspect your suspicions are suspect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Just because you want something to be true, and keep repeating it... doesn't make it true.

Apple had $200 Billion revenue from multi touch devices... MS has a market cap of $250 Billion compared to Apple's $589 Billion -- you figure who is the best potential source for money.

I suspect that Han sold his company and IP for a lump sum and won't receive any royalties or license fees. MS plays hardball and I suspect what Han received is rather lower than what a valid claim against Apple would have brought.

Finally, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Han's offering resembles MS' big-assed [Surface] table more that any of Apple's offerings. I suspect MS bought Han's company because of the nuisance factor, rather than the potential for cross-licensing the IP to Apple.

suspectverb |səˈspekt| [ with obj. ]1 have an ideaorimpressionoftheexistence, presence, or truth of (something) withoutcertain proof: if you suspect a gas leak, do not turn on an electric light | [ withclause ] : she suspected that he might be bluffing | (as adj.suspected) : a suspected heart condition.• believeorfeelthat (someone) is guilty of an illegal, dishonest, or unpleasant act, without certain proof: parents suspected of child abuse.

Above is the dictionary definition of suspect!

People often make statements that they think are true, but cannot verify them as certain fact. In polite conversation, these statements are usually qualified with "I suspect" or "I think". This places the topics into discussion with proper emphasis on their veracity.

You should try it -- you might find that people are more likely to reason with you than challenge your indefensible statements of ideas or feelings as facts.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

DiamondTouch's primary gesture was called FractalZoom which used a single touch for scrolling and two fingers for pinch and zoom. Interestingly, Bogue claims he demoed the multitouch tech to Apple hardware engineers in 2003, though the meeting was fruitless. Samsung did, however, submit a number of e-mails Bogue kept concerning the Apple demo as evidence.

Prior Art is extremely hard to prove when invalidating patents; the patent office does a very good job of researching and discovery before issuing a patent.

LMFAO.

Anyway, the videos aren't very helpful to us (presumably because it's all AppleInsider could find on YouTube), but in the court the testimony is what counts, and that's where the creator said it had pinch to zoom, and that it was demonstrated to Apple quite some time before it appeared in their products and they patented it.

As for the tiled UI thing, god knows what that is, but it looks as ugly as pretty much every Windows Mobile application did.

No, it shows that the idea for multi-touch interaction with a computer screen existed before the iPhone. The guy even called it "multi-touch" at one point. It doesn't matter if the gestures are different (Why would that matter in any way?) or that it is used on a different OS...the idea is clearly being used PRIOR to the iPhone. I am not an "Apple hater", but this looks like an example of prior art to me.

Sorry, but it does matter. Apple doesn't own patents on "multitouch" nor do they own patents on "touchscreens". They have patents on very specific implementations of using touch gestures.

This is as bad as the haters whining when it was discovered Apple had a patent application for "facial recognition". Everyone was going "how can Apple patent facial recognition - it's been around for years?" What Apple has patented is a very specific method of facial recognition which is uniquely different from all the other patents on facial recognition.

People claim Apple is too vague. Well, I say the poeple against Apple are the ones being vague. As soon as they see anything that's even remotely similar to Apple technolgy they immediately claim "prior art" and that "Apple copied..."